DOCSLIB.ORG

Audit 2017: How Democratic Is the Devolved Government of London?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Audit 2017: How Democratic Is the Devolved Government of London? Audit 2017: How democratic is the devolved government of London? democraticaudit.com /2017/06/22/audit-2017-how-democratic-is-the-devolved-government-of-london/ By Democratic Audit UK 22/06/2017 Devolved government in London – focusing on the executive Mayor and Greater London Assembly – started as a radical innovation in 2000. Its generally successful development has sparked a slow, ‘organic’ spread of executive Mayors to other English cities and conurbations. As part of the 2017 Audit of UK Democracy, Andrew Blick and Patrick Dunleavy explore how democratically and effectively the two London institutions have performed. Photo: Lena Vasiljeva via a CC-BY NC 2.0 licence What does democracy require of London’s devolved government? Elected politicians should normally maintain full public control of devolved government and public services. In the London system this means there should be accountable and transparent government exercised by the Mayor. The Assembly should ensure close scrutiny of the executive, and allow other parties to articulate reasoned opposition via its proceedings. TheGreater London Authority (GLA, comprised of the Mayor and Assembly acting together) should be a critically important focus of London-wide political debate, particularly (but not limited to) issues of devolved competence, articulating ‘public opinion’ in ways that provide useful guidance to decision-makers in making complex policy choices. Individually and collectively Assembly members should seek to uncover and publicise issues of 1/8 public concern and citizens’ grievances, giving effective representation both to majority and minority views, and showing a consensus regard for the public interest. The London Mayor as executive should govern responsively, prioritising the public interest and reflecting public opinion in the capital. The GLA administration should be realistically and reliably funded, with resources so scaled that it could carry out its functions well, so long as it is efficiently and effectively run. The GLA should be a stable part of the UK’s constitutional set-up, with considerable protection against ill-considered or partisan interventions in how it works originating from central government or Parliament. The Greater London Authority (GLA) was established after a 1998 referendum, which saw Londoners endorse – by 72 per cent on a 34 per cent turnout – a new strategic government for the capital proposed by the Blair government. It consists primarily of a Mayor and Assembly, each elected by voters across London every four years. The mayor controls the GLA’s executive powers, which cover strategic and London-wide functions – especially public transport and roads, policing via the Metropolitan Police, fire services, and strategic planning and economic development. The small (25 member) Assembly is elected using a form of proportional representation. It scrutinises the mayor’s policies, budgets and conduct in office, and allows different parties to develop and advocate for varying policy agendas. All other local government services are run by 32 London boroughs, with which the GLA must co-operate to achieve many goals (see below). The GLA was deliberately set up by Tony Blair to be a slim top-tier body, with a strong mayor and a weak Assembly, whose members would be forced to focus on London-wide issues, and not local ones. The Assembly’s only clear powers are that it can reject or amend the strategies or the budget that the mayor proposes. However, in both cases, a two-thirds majority in the Assembly is required to replace the original proposal, which is very difficult to achieve. So in practical terms the Assembly can only scrutinise the activities of the Mayor through a range of committees. It can also hold public hearings with the key post holders appointed by the Mayor, but lacks the power to block their appointment. Recent developments In the fourth round of the mayoral elections in 2016, using the Supplementary Vote election system which requires candidates to gain a majority of eligible votes, Labour’s Sadiq Khan won 58% support in the run-off stage to convincingly beat the Tory candidate, Zac Goldsmith. He succeeded Boris Johnson, who had served eight years as London mayor. Khan’s manifesto priorities were to build more homes (of which half would have to be ‘genuinely affordable’), freeze transport costs and tackle gangs and knife crime. In an effort to reduce air pollution, the mayor also announced a ‘T-charge’ (a levy on more polluting vehicles) to apply within London’s congestion charging zone from late 2017. The Assembly election uses a form of Additional Member System (AMS), with 14 local constituency seats (spanning two or three London boroughs) with winners elected by ‘first past the post’ (or plurality rule) voting. However, voters then have a second vote for 11 London-wide seats, which are distributed to parties so as to make their total seats shares align with their vote shares. In 2016 Labour and the Conservatives won all the local seats between them, and 2/8 gained top-up seats as well – ending up with 12 and 8 total seats respectively. This continued a pattern that stretches back over many elections for the top two parties to dominate the capital’s politics. The Greens (2 seats), Liberal Democrats (1 seat) and UKIP (2 seats) had more limited success at the top-up seat stage. Turnout in 2016 rose to 45 per cent, matching the 2008 peak when Boris Johnson was first elected. Chart 1: The percentage turnout in the five London mayoral and Assembly elections since 2000 In the June 2016 Brexit referendum just under 60 per cent of Londoners voted to remain in the EU, reflecting the city’s more youthful population, and perhaps factors such as the importance of EU workers for many key industries and services, and the capital’s stronger dependence on Europe for trade and markets. Efforts by Sadiq Kahn to influence UK policy towards a ‘softer’ Brexit (backed by the vast majority of bigger London businesses) have so far been decisively rejected by Whitehall. Finally, the GLA’s policy roles and competencies sprang into far greater prominence in the spring and summer of 2017 following three terrorist attacks in central London (two on iconic bridges), plus the catastrophic fire in the municipal Grenfell Tower block. For homeland security it became clear that protecting citizens from vehicular assaults would require a far-reaching re-assessment of roadside barriers (belatedly introduced on London bridges) and other ‘passive’ measures. This will require much greater liaison between the Metropolitan Police and GLA and borough highway authorities. The fire tragedy also attracted criticism for the initial response by the small Kensington and Chelsea borough and by Whitehall departments; the possible under-funding and under-management of public housing that had gone before; and issues about the adequacy of fire regulations policed by the GLA-controlled fire service. There are implications here for the two-tier local governance of London, with the mayor and GLA likely to emerge with stronger abilities to guide how boroughs carry out some functions. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats (SWOT) analysis 3/8 Current strengths Current weaknesses Mayoral elections have proved genuinely Theoretically any mayor whose party holds 9 or more votes competitive, with the winners being an independent in the 25 member Assembly can never be defeated, and so candidate (Ken Livingstone in 2000), Labour need take no notice of its views. In practice, mayors have candidates (Livingstone in 2004 and Sadiq Khan in wanted to be seen as performing well in scrutiny meetings 2016) and a Conservative candidate (Boris and as acting with majority support in the Assembly. But Johnson in 2008 and 2012). In each round the top these more subtle means of Assembly influence are not two candidates have been very easily identified by widely known, and its role is not seen as very important by voters. Turnout has been substantial for new most London citizens. By contrast, the mayor is seen as bodies, recently established, and has risen overall. very powerful. The intense interest generated In the mayoral election, voters have first and second by these contests, and the strong legitimacy preference choices. If no one wins over 50% support on first produced by winning clear majorities under the SV preferences, then the top two candidates stay in the race voting system, have made the London Mayor a key and all others are eliminated. The second preferences politician not just in London, but across the UK and ballots cast by voters supporting for eliminated candidates internationally. Each of the Mayors has been able to are examined, and any 2nd votes for the candidates still in represent London internally and externally, wielding the race are added to their piles. However, if voters cast both hard power (via extensive policy reach) and both preferences for eliminated candidates, these are not soft power (via media prominence and a clear ‘eligible’ and do not influence the result. mandate). Since it was established, the GLA has become a Despite the high level of public attention around mayoral firmly established fixture of UK governance and its elections, turnout in elections has fluctuated between the powers have expanded over time. For the low 30s and mid 40s (see Chart 1 above) – levels found in foreseeable future, it is difficult to imagine any UK other local elections, and well below those in the devolved government seeking to abolish it, as Margaret countries. Thatcher did with its predecessor (the Greater London Council) in 1986. Mayors have made creative use of the powers they Smaller parties, those which win less than 5% of the possess, especially in the field of transport. The London-wide votes for the Assembly, are debarred from congestion charge (introduced by Ken Livingstone) winning any seats through a rule inserted to discourage is a good example of innovation in this area.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Transport for London Invitation to Tender Issued on Behalf of The
    Invitation to Tender National Sports Centre – Sporting Facility Assessment Transport for London Invitation to Tender Issued on behalf of The Greater London Authority ITT Title: Sports Facility Assessment Reference Number: GLA NSC SFA 2017 Copyright on the whole and every part of this document is owned by Transport for London. No reproduction of the whole or any part of this document is to be made without the authority of Transport for London. This document is confidential to Transport for London. No part of this document or information contained in this document may be disclosed to any party without the prior consent of Transport for London. - 'Protect-Commercial'- Page 1 of 42 Invitation to Tender National Sports Centre – Sporting Facility Assessment Table of Contents Part 1 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Overview ............................................................................................................. 4 1.2 Document Structure ............................................................................................ 4 2 Background ...................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Transport for London – Overview ........................................................................ 5 2.3 Further Information ............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Development Committee Date
    Committee: Date: Classification: Strategic 29 November 2016 Unrestricted Development Committee Report of: Title: Applications for Planning Permission Director of Development and Renewal Ref No: PA/16/01763/A1 Case Officer: Zarndra Piper Ward: Poplar 1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS Location: Former Castle Wharf Esso Petrol Station, Leamouth Road, London, E14 0JG Existing Use: Vacant Proposal: Redevelopment of the former Service Station site with a residential-led mixed use development, comprising 338 residential units, together with 376 sqm of flexible non- residential floorspace (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, B1, D1 and D2), 36 sqm café floorspace (Use Class A3), set across two main buildings including a 24 storey tower with stepped blocks of 20, 17, 11 and 8 storeys, linked by a 2 storey podium at ground level, with a single basement level, landscaping and associated amenities Drawings: PL099 A, PL100 A, PL101 A1, PL102 C, PL103 C, PL104 C, PL105 C, PL106 C, PL107 C, PL108 B, PL109 B, PL110 B, PL111 B, PL112 B, PL113, PL114, PL120, PL001, PL002, PL150, PL151, PL152, PL153, PL154, PL200, PL201 B, PL202 B, PL203 B, PL204 B, PL205 B, PL210 A, PL211 A, PL212 A, PL213 A, PL301, PL302, PL303, PL304, PL305, PL306, PL307, PL308, PL309. Documents: Design & Access Statement (including refuse and lighting strategy) prepared by BUJ Architects Statement of Community Involvement, prepared by Four Communications Townscape, Heritage & Visual Impact Assessment prepared by Heritage Architecture Daylight & Sunlight Assessment prepared by GVA Schatunwski Brooks
    [Show full text]
  • Barking Riverside Ltd – Continuation of Support and Statutory Accounts
    REQUEST FOR MAYORAL DECISION – MD1520 Title: Barking Riverside Ltd – Continuation of support and statutory accounts Executive Summary: The statutory accounts for year ending July 2014 are to be filed for Barking Riverside Limited – a joint venture company of which GLA Land and Property Limited is a shareholder along with Bellway Homes Limited. In order to complete the accounts, the company’s auditors, KPMG, require each shareholder to confirm that it will continue to support the company including not seeking repayment of finance provided to the company during the twelve months following submission of the accounts. Confirmation is to be provided in the form of two letters to be sent by GLA Land and Property Limited to the Directors of Barking Riverside Limited. Decision: That the Mayor approves GLA Land and Property Limited’s continued provision of support to Barking Riverside Limited in the form described in this paper for the period up to 31 July 2016. Mayor of London I confirm that I do not have any disclosable pecuniary interests in the proposed decision, and take the decision in compliance with the Code of Conduct for elected Members of the Authority. The above request has my approval. Signature: Date: 1 PART I - NON-CONFIDENTIAL FACTS AND ADVICE TO THE MAYOR Decision required – supporting report 1. Introduction and background 1.1. Barking Riverside Limited (BRL) is a joint venture (JV) between the GLA and Bellway Homes Limited, each owning 49% and 51% of the shares respectively. The GLA’s interest is held by GLA Land and Property Limited (GLAP). 1.2.
    [Show full text]
  • Committee and Panel Membership and Terms of Reference 2021/22
    London Assembly – Membership of Committees/Panels and Terms of Reference 2021/22 The attached grid sets out the structure of and terms of reference for London Assembly committees and other bodies for the 2021/22 Assembly Year put forward following informal discussions between the Assembly’s party Groups, and nominations from Groups to those bodies. The proposals set out give rise to the following proportionality calculations, across the committee structure as a whole. The proposed allocation of seats has been drawn up on the basis that the Assembly will fully comply with the provisions of Section 17 of the Local Government and Housing Act. Number of seats per Group Assembly Committee Seats seats overall1 Labour Group 11 44% 39 (39.16) Conservative Group 9 36% 32 (32.04) City Hall Greens Group 3 12% 11 (10.68) Liberal Democrat 2 8% 7 (7.12) Total seats 25 89 Committee Structure: 1x11 Member committee 2x10 Member committees 2x9 Member committee 2x7 Member committees 2x6 Member committees 2x5 Member committees 1x4 Member committee Total – 89 seats 1 The strict proportional entitlement to seats as a whole is set out in brackets. Audit Panel Total number of seats: 4 Membership Allocation Party Group Name 2 Labour Labour Len Duvall AM 2 Conservatives Labour Krupesh Hirani AM Conservative Peter Fortune AM (Deputy Chairman) Conservative Susan Hall AM (Chairman) Substitutes: For London Assembly Labour Group - all relevant non-appointed Members of the political Group. For GLA Conservatives Group - all relevant non-appointed Members of the political Group. Terms of Reference 1. To review progress reports on the internal audit work plan; receive internal audit reports and follow-up reports arising from that plan; and consider the Director of Audit, Risk and Assurance’s annual report and annual opinion on the internal control environment for the GLA; 2.
    [Show full text]
  • A Growth Deal for London | Proposals to HM Government
    A Growth Deal for London | Proposals to HM government A Growth Deal for London Proposals to HM government 31 March 2014 1 A Growth Deal for London | Proposals to HM government Published by London Enterprise Panel City Hall, The Queen’s Walk More London SE1 2AA 31 March 2014 www.london.gov.uk Telephone: 020 7983 4000 2 A Growth Deal for London | Proposals to HM government A Growth Deal for London: Proposals to HM government Foreword ............................................................................ 4 1 Growth Deal - Executive summary .............................. 5 2 London in context ..................................................... 11 3 Local Growth Fund .................................................... 51 4 Programmes to support and sustain London’s growth: beyond the Growth Deal .................................... 92 5 Unleashing London’s economy: new levers and influence .......................................................................... 99 Appendix 1 - The role of the Mayor in London ................ 199 Appendix 2 – LEP decision making .................................. 203 Appendix 3 – London’s strategic economic plans ............ 205 Appendix 4 – London Enterprise Panel requirements for ESF match funders .......................................................... 207 Appendix 5 – London’s Opportunity Areas and intensification areas ....................................................... 209 Appendix 6 - London boroughs working with business and providers to improve the skills of Londoners .................
    [Show full text]
  • This Email Has Been Scanned by the Symantec Email Security.Cloud Service
    From: To: Emre Williams; silvertowntunnel Cc: No to Silvertown Tunnel Subject: SILV-430 Deadline 6 Written Representation Date: 05 April 2017 17:47:57 Attachments: md2102_thameside_west_-_part_one_signed_pdf.pdf SILV-430_Darryl_Chamberlain_050417_.pdf Dear Emré, I would like to submit a Written Representation for Deadline 6 of the Silvertown Tunnel examination. I have just been alerted to a Mayoral Decision that claims the tunnel has already been approved, and I believe the panel should alerted to this. The written representation is attached to this email, along with the relevant Mayoral Decision. Best wishes, Darryl Chamberlain -- ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________ Darryl Chamberlain (SILV-430) Deadline 6 Written Representation 5 April 2017 1. I would like to draw the Examining Authority’s attention to a Mayoral Decision made by the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, on 3 April 2017 - it is reference number MD2102, and can be found on the Greater London Authority (GLA) website: https://www.london.gov.uk/decisions/md2102-thameside-west-preparing-development 2. The Mayoral Decision refers to land on the north bank of the river where Transport for London hopes to construct the northern portal of the Silvertown Tunnel. 3. The mayor is already acting as if it has been given permission to build the tunnel, when this is not the case. The Mayoral Decision claims in paragraph 1.2 that a river crossing “has now recently been confirmed via the Silvertown Tunnel Development Consent Order”. The executive summary also claims the tunnel has been “recently confirmed”.
    [Show full text]
  • Homes for Londoners a Blueprint for How the Mayor Can Deliver the Homes London Needs July 2016
    Homes for Londoners A blueprint for how the Mayor can deliver the homes London needs July 2016 London First Dentons UKMEA LLP Middlesex House One Fleet Place 34-42 Cleveland Street London London EC4M 7RA W1T 4JE Stephen Ashworth Jonathan Seager Partner Housing Director T: 020 7320 6134 T: 020 7665 1584 [email protected] [email protected] www.londonfirst.co.uk Katie Scuoler Associate T: 020 7246 7386 [email protected] www.dentons.com Contents 1. Summary 1 2. Introduction 3 3. The Greater London Authority and its powers 7 4. Harnessing the Mayor’s powers to support housebuilding 11 5. Homes for Londoners: land 14 6. Homes for Londoners: central resource and policy advocacy 19 7. Homes for Londoners: transport and wider infrastructure 23 8. Homes for Londoners: affordable housing 26 9. Homes for Londoners: financing and funding 29 10. Homes for Londoners: skills and innovation 31 11. Conclusion 33 Summary London’s housing crisis dominated the mayoral election campaign with the new Mayor, Sadiq Khan, calling the election a ‘referendum on housing’. During the 1 campaign, Khan made it clear he wanted to see more homes built, particularly affordable homes. A new Mayor saying he will significantly increase supply is welcome. Achieving that is more difficult; words must now be turned into action. London’s high house prices – the average price is now approximately £530,000 – underpinned by a lack of supply is a systemic problem. The city is failing to build the homes it needs. The latest housebuilding figures show that only 27,819 new homes were built in 2014-15 set against a housebuilding target of 49,000 homes a year, with demand for new homes only set to increase as the capital’s population is projected to hit 10 million in the 2030s.
    [Show full text]
  • The London Housing Strategy
    HOMES FOR LONDON THE LONDON HOUSING STRATEGY DRAFT FOR CONSULTATION NOVEMBER 2013 HOMES FOR LONDON: THE DRAFT LONDON HOUSING STRATEGY 2013 HOMES FOR LONDON: THE DRAFT LONDON HOUSING STRATEGY 2013 COPYRIGHT Greater London Authority November 2013 Published by Greater London Authority City Hall The Queen’s Walk More London London SE1 2AA www.london.gov.uk enquiries 020 7983 4100 minicom 020 7983 4458 Photographs © Cover image courtesy of Bellway Homes Copies of this report are available from www.london.gov.uk HOMES FOR LONDON: THE DRAFT LONDON HOUSING STRATEGY 2013 CONTENTS FOREWORD 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 PART 1 IDENTIFYING THE CHALLENGE 5 Housing London’s growing population 6 Supporting London’s economy 11 PART 2 SETTING THE AMBITION 13 Increasing the supply of new homes 14 Improving design 18 Improving existing homes and estates 19 PART 3 FULFILLING THE COVENANT 21 Supporting working Londoners 22 Meeting a range of housing need 30 PART 4 DELIVERING THE VISION 34 Learning the lessons of the past 35 Financing housing delivery 36 Bringing forward land for development 41 Increasing development capacity 48 PART 5 ABOUT THIS STRATEGY 51 APPENDIX 1 Summary of policies 53 APPENDIX 2 Funding proposals 57 ENDNOTES 58 HOMES FOR LONDON: THE DRAFT LONDON HOUSING STRATEGY 2013 2 FOREWORD My 2020 Vision set out the scale of the challenges we face in maintaining London’s international position. Many of these are challenges we share with other world cities such as New York, Paris and Tokyo. Like London, they are becoming ever more clearly the engines of international growth. And like us, they are struggling to house growing populations, struggling to increase housing supply and struggling to help citizens access ever more unaffordable homes.
    [Show full text]
  • Greaterlondonauthority
    GREATERLONDONAUTHORITY REQUEST FOR MAYORAL DECISION — MD2102 Thameside West — Preparing for development Executive Summary: GLA Land and Property Limited (GLAP) holds significant land interests on the north bank of the Thames, opposite Greenwich Peninsula in the London Borough Newham (LBN) This area is referred to as Thameside West (see Annex 1 for a full breakdown of the land holdings) Within Thameside West, GLAP owns the freehold of the Thames Wharf site and has a share of the Carlsberg-Tetley site under a joint venture arrangement with Silvertown Homes Limited (previously Quintain) Thameside West will be significantly affected by the recently confirmed Silvertown Tunnel works This paper seeks Mayoral approval to undertake a number of work streams and the associated budget to minimise the negative impact of the delays and works resulting from the tunnel including 1 - GLAP will seek to enter into an Agreement with TfL to secure efficient coordination of construction activity during construction and upon completion of the proposed Silvertown Tunnel thereby accelerating the point at which housing can be delivered on Thames Wharf This will include securing supporting planning applications for the works to be carried out 2 - GLAP will update the existing Carlsberg Tetley Joint Venture agreement so that an appropriate turecanbeutinlacethatallowsdevelomenttororessswiftl Decision: The Mayor is asked to 1 Approve that GLA Land and Property Limited enters into a Land & Works Agreement with TfL on materially the same terms set out in this Mayoral
    [Show full text]
  • Land Value Capture
    Land value capture Annexes Contents Annex 1 – Land value uplift and public transport projects: theory and evidence .............................. 3 Annex 2 – Historic examples of land value uplift and development of a value uplift model ........... 10 Annex 3 – Review of existing mechanisms to capture value uplift on existing stock and new development ................................................................................................................................. 16 Annex 4 – Additional CPO reform proposals ................................................................................. 20 Annex 5 – Summary of TfL’s response to the Government’s consultation on further reform of the compulsory purchase system ........................................................................................................ 25 Annex 6 – KPMG findings .............................................................................................................. 27 Annex 7 – Literature review ........................................................................................................... 32 Version 10.0 – 20 February2017 2 Annex 1 – Land value uplift and public transport projects: theory and evidence 1. This annex summarises the theoretical and empirical insights from our review at Transport for London (TfL) of the literature on land value uplift. Study references are to the bibliography in the literature review. Theory The basic monocentric urban model 2. To develop the theoretical foundations for this study, we begin with
    [Show full text]
  • Statement of Accounts 2019/20 UNAUDITED
    Statement of Accounts 2019/20 UNAUDITED Contents Narrative Report 3 Statement of Responsibilities for the Statement of Accounts 10 Approval of the Statement of Accounts by the Mayor of London 11 Independent Auditor’s Report to the Greater London Authority 12 Comprehensive Income and Expenditure Statement 13 Movement in Reserves Statement 15 Balance Sheet 19 Cash Flow Statement 20 Notes to the Financial Statements 21 Fund Account 133 Crossrail (incorporating Business Rates Supplement) Revenue Account 134 Notes to the Crossrail Revenue Account 135 Glossary 136 2 DRAFT-Greater London Authority Statement of Accounts 2019/20 Narrative Report The GLA’s accounts provides a wealth of detail on the Authority’s financial position. They are a critical part of our stewardship of large sums of public money. However, as they have to be prepared in a prescribed format the pages that follow, at times, do not read easily. This narrative draws out the key issues from these accounts in an attempt to make them clearer and more understandable to all interested parties. Structure This narrative sets out the: • GLA’s context; • Performance against the Mayor’s vision; • Financial performance in 2019/20; • GLA’s Balance Sheet at 31 March 2020; and • Main financial risks facing the Authority. Context The GLA is the strategic authority for London, and sits between the national Government and the London boroughs. It consists of the: • Mayor of London, who is to be responsible for making London a better place for all those who visit, live or work in the city; and • the London Assembly, which holds the Mayor to account.
    [Show full text]
  • The Revised London Housing Strategy for Consultation with the Public December 2011 the Revised London Housing Strategy
    The revised London housing StraTegy for consultaTion wiTh The pubLic DECember 2011 The revised London housing StraTegy copyrighT Greater London Authority December 2011 Published by Greater London Authority City Hall, The Queen’s Walk London SE1 2AA www.london.gov.uk enquiries 020 7983 4100 minicom 020 7983 4458 ISBN 978 1 84781 479 1 3 The revised London housing StraTegy for consultaTion wiTh The pubLic DECEMber 2011 The revised London housing StraTegy conTenTs foreword 5 inTroducTion 7 The Mayor’s vision 8 Housing and devolution 8 Investing in homes, investing for growth 10 Towards the spending review 12 parT ONE – peopLe 15 1.1 Owning a home 16 1.2 Renting a home 19 1.3 Tackling need 23 1.4 Empowering communities 27 parT TWO – pLaces 31 2.1 Increasing supply 32 2.2 Transforming places 36 2.3 Improving quality 40 parT Three – abouT This sTraTegy 45 3.1 The Mayor’s housing powers 46 3.2 Equal life chances for all 47 3.3 Responding to this consultation 47 appendices 49 Appendix 1 Affordable housing investment and delivery 50 Appendix 2 Affordable housing contracts, 2011-15 51 Appendix 3 Decent Homes funding, 2011-15 52 Appendix 4 Other housing investment, 2011-15 53 ENDNOTES 55 5 foreword era of cramped, unsuitable homes, and renew the capital’s traditions of design excellence. I am keen to improve home ownership opportunities for Londoners both through extending my First Steps programme and by working closely with the government on a new mortgage initiative to help Londoners who face the highest prices and biggest affordability challenges in the country.
    [Show full text]